Nikkor 500mm AF-S I vs AF-S II

<p>Getting really tired of missing good shots with my Nikkor 500mm P manual focus lens.Although optically superb, the lack of AF is really a downside, which takes a LOT of good shots resulting in slight blur instead of tack sharp.<br>

I am thinking of selling it and buying a used af-s I or II model, prefer the II, main reason - 3,4kg vs 3,8kg of the af-s I.Are they other differences, specially the focus speed (d7000 body) and weather sealing (shooting in some rain)?What should I get?<br>

I dont like VR, dont need it for BIF, so I aint interested in both VR versions.</p>

They are optically (almost) identical, but version 2 can focus closer. I believe version 2 is lighter because it has more

carbon fiber on the barrel.

 

As I mentioned to you before, I upgraded from the 500mm/f4 P to the AF-S back in 1998, and I still own that lens. Having

AF is a major plus.

<p>Indeed it is, had to learn it the hard way.I got good actions shots with this lens, but way too few.Here are some of them:<a href="https://500px.com/DilomSki" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://500px.com/DilomSki</a><br /></p>

BTW, there is only one VR version of the 500mm/f4 AF-S, introduced on August 23, 2007, along with the D3 and D300.

 

So there are the manual-focus P, AF-I, the two AF-S without VR, and the current VR. I would avoid the AF-I since Nikon

hasn't made that motor in a long time so that parts is a concern should the AF motor fails. Any one of the AF-S should be

fine. I would prefer version 2 due to the lighter weight and closer focusing. At least to me, VR is not useful for these long

teles.

<p>I jumped from the P to the AF-S II version a couple years ago. It's a totally new world... bird photography that used to be an exercise in frustration control is now a lot of fun. :-)<br>

At the time I was looking for any good deal in either the AF-I or one of the two AF-S. Almost bought the AF-I but reports of AF motor issue restrained me. First they were reports of broken motors and then those about the high difficulty to get replacements, that was two years ago so it surely didn't improve.<br>

I think both AF-S models use the same AF motor but I am not sure. I was lucky to find the AF-S II version and appreciate the lighter weight. I also find that the carbon fiber hood is less prone to scratches than the metal one.<br>

In any case, as Shun said, AF is a major plus.</p>

<p>You said it, Georges, exercise in frustration.Could said it better myself.I will start looking for a good used lens:)</p>

<p>No input on the AF-S lenses, but sympathy on trying to manual focus the AI-P. A TC-16A helps somewhat, but the optical quality suffers. I don't use mine nearly as much as I'd like - also, it's so front-heavy that I only really feel comfortable using it on a Manfrotto 393 and a tripod. I'm looking forward to feeling rich enough to pick up a 400 f/2.8 VR instead (I'd settle for the old one!) since, experimentally, I can hand-hold that, at least on a shot-by-shot basis.</p>

<p>I upgraded from the 500mm f 4.0 P manual focus lens to the 500mm f 4.0 AFS II version about the time that the 500mm f 4.0 VR version was announced. I have never regretted that decision. I would avoid the AF-I because of parts availability issues as already posted. An added bonus was that I sold the P version for more than what I paid for it. I did replace the foot on the 500mm f 4.0 AFS II with a shorter one from Really Right Stuff as I recall. I use it on a Wimberley gimbal head . I found it to be a little harder to use (keep balanced) on my regular ballhead than the P version. If you have tcs for the P version, you will need AF versions for the AFS II version. <br>

Joe Smith</p>

<p>Yes, Joe, I will actually combo the P and the tc14b for the sell, they work wonderful together.Cant say the same for the tc-16a though, which I will sell too.Allready got responce for the P, but finding a relative cheap afs II is harder (in Europe).Looking forward to the new lens and the new opportunities:)</p>

<p>Hey guys, as I am still looking for a used 500mm af-s II a friend of mine is encouraging me to go for a used vr version.Is it that huge of an optical difference between vr and af-s II, to exclude the vr options that it brings?<br>

Another option is to go for 300mm vr or vr II plus tc-20e III to get 600mm.How is the focus speed then?Enough for BIF or action shots?<br>

Really confused about the choises, I can get one supertele and want to be happy with it:)</p>

<p>I think pretty much all of those AF-S super telephoto lenses, i.e. 300mm and longer, are excellent. Which one to get depends on your budget. Personally, I don't find VR all that useful.</p>

<p>A 300mm lens + 2X TC will be smaller and lighter, but any 2X TC will degrade the optical quality pretty significantly unless you further stop down, but then your lens will be quite slow.</p>

<p>Your mileage maybe different, but I wouldn't use any 2x TC on a regular basis, and I don't find VR all that necessary since I always use those long lenses on a tripod (or at least monopod).</p>

<p>Thanks for the comment,Shun.I do use my 500mm P with monopod 99%of the time.300 with 2x is going to be slower then 500mm with or without a 1,4x.I just have to find one af-s II to buy.When I do, I will post some pictures with it:)</p>

<p>As I mentioned before, I have had the first AF-S version since 1998, two years after its introduction. That is still a fine lens today. I would probably avoid the AF-I due to the lack of parts for replacement AF motor. Any one of the AF-S version should be fine.</p>